Lightfoot v. State
801 So. 2d 313, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17749, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2967
Opinion
We affirm the revocation of the appellant’s probation because the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Bell v. State, 643 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The appellant’s remaining claims are without merit because the appellant accepted the benefits associated with his sentence. Huff v. State, 672 So.2d 634, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(holding that even though the appellant’s original suspended sentence may have been improper, it was not reversible error because the appellant received the benefits of the improper sentence).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lightfoot v. State, 801 So. 2d 313, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17749, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2967 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).
801 So. 2d 313 (Lightfoot v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bell v. State
643 So. 2d 674 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Huff v. State
672 So. 2d 634 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)